Skip to content

Commit 27458d6

Browse files
committed
fixups: more grammar and formatting fixes
1 parent fbd3bd5 commit 27458d6

File tree

4 files changed

+17
-14
lines changed

4 files changed

+17
-14
lines changed

source/expressions.tex

Lines changed: 7 additions & 7 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@
12831283
If the expression \tcode{this}
12841284
appears within the predicate of a contract assertion\iref{basic.contract.general}
12851285
(including as the result of an implicit transformation\iref{expr.prim.id.general}
1286-
and including in the bodies of nested \grammarterm{lambda-expression}s),
1286+
and including in the bodies of nested \grammarterm{lambda-expression}s), %JMB: I think this is hard to parse, and lori suggested removing the second comma. It's "If (X including Y) and Z then A" but we have "If X and Y, and Z, then A". Should we make this "If X (including Y) and Z, A"
12871287
and the current class
12881288
encloses the contract assertion,
12891289
\tcode{const} is combined with the \grammarterm{cv-qualifier-seq}
@@ -1418,7 +1418,7 @@
14181418
bool b;
14191419
C() pre(b) // error
14201420
pre(&this->b) // OK
1421-
pre(sizeof(b) > 0); // OK, \tcode{b} is not potentially evaluated
1421+
pre(sizeof(b) > 0); // OK, \tcode{b} is not potentially evaluated.
14221422
};
14231423
\end{codeblock}
14241424
\end{example}
@@ -1714,9 +1714,9 @@
17141714
\pnum
17151715
If an \grammarterm{id-expression} $E$
17161716
appears in the predicate of
1717-
a function contract assertion attached to a function \placeholder{f}
1717+
a function contract assertion attached to a function \placeholder{f}
17181718
and denotes
1719-
a function parameter of \placeholder{f},
1719+
a function parameter of \placeholder{f}
17201720
and the implementation introduces any temporary objects
17211721
to hold the value of that parameter as specified in \ref{class.temporary},
17221722
\begin{itemize}
@@ -1737,7 +1737,7 @@
17371737
\pnum
17381738
If an \grammarterm{id-expression} $E$
17391739
names a result binding
1740-
in a postcondition assertion,
1740+
in a postcondition assertion
17411741
and the implementation introduces any temporary objects
17421742
to hold the result object as specified in \ref{class.temporary},
17431743
and the postcondition assertion
@@ -3681,7 +3681,7 @@
36813681
The initialization of a parameter or, %JMB: do we need a comma before the or too?
36823682
if the implementation introduces any temporary objects
36833683
to hold the values of function parameters\iref{class.temporary},
3684-
the initializatoin of those temporaries,
3684+
the initialization of those temporaries,
36853685
including every associated value computation and side effect,
36863686
is indeterminately sequenced with respect to that of any other parameter.
36873687
These evaluations are
@@ -7868,7 +7868,7 @@
78687868
the full-expression of its initialization is a constant expression
78697869
when interpreted as a \grammarterm{constant-expression}
78707870
with all contract assertions
7871-
using the ignore evaluation semantic\iref{basic.contract.eval}, and %JMB: Should we reove this and, there are 3 bullets?
7871+
using the ignore evaluation semantic\iref{basic.contract.eval}, and %JMB: Should we remove this "and", there are 3 bullets?
78727872
\begin{note}
78737873
Within this evaluation,
78747874
\tcode{std::is_constant_evaluated()}\iref{meta.const.eval}

source/lib-intro.tex

Lines changed: 3 additions & 3 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -375,7 +375,7 @@
375375
violation of any preconditions results in undefined behavior.
376376
\begin{example}
377377
An implementation can express some such conditions
378-
via the use of a contract assertion
378+
via the use of a contract assertion,
379379
such as a precondition assertion\iref{dcl.contract.func}.
380380
\end{example}
381381

@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@
393393
established by the function.
394394
\begin{example}
395395
An implementation can express some such conditions
396-
via the use of a contract assertion
396+
via the use of a contract assertion,
397397
such as a postcondition assertion\iref{dcl.contract.func}.
398398
\end{example}
399399

@@ -3559,7 +3559,7 @@
35593559
in~\ref{global.functions}, member functions in~\ref{member.functions}, data race
35603560
avoidance in~\ref{res.on.data.races}, access specifiers
35613561
in~\ref{protection.within.classes}, class derivation in~\ref{derivation}, and
3562-
exceptions in~\ref{res.on.exception.handling}. %JMB: This intro fluff should add "and contract assertions in~\ref{res.contract.assertions} Also, the "its use" doesn't seem right in this sentence.
3562+
exceptions in~\ref{res.on.exception.handling}. %JMB: This intro fluff should add "and contract assertions in~\ref{res.contract.assertions} Also, the "its use" doesn't seem right in this sentence. Can I make this a bulleted list so that it resembles a sentence again?
35633563

35643564
\rSec3[res.on.headers]{Headers}
35653565

source/overloading.tex

Lines changed: 4 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -472,15 +472,17 @@
472472
and overload resolution selects a non-static member function,
473473
the call is ill-formed;
474474
\item
475-
otherwise the implied object argument is \tcode{(*\keyword{this})}. %JMB: The \keyword on this was missing
475+
otherwise,
476+
the implied object argument is
477+
\tcode{(*\keyword{this})}. %JMB: The \keyword on this was missing
476478
\end{itemize}
477479
Otherwise,
478480
\begin{itemize}
479481
\item
480482
if overload resolution selects a non-static member function,
481483
the call is ill-formed;
482484
\item
483-
otherwise
485+
otherwise,
484486
a contrived object of type
485487
\tcode{T}
486488
becomes the implied object argument.

source/statements.tex

Lines changed: 3 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1065,11 +1065,12 @@
10651065

10661066
\pnum
10671067
The evaluation of consecutive \grammarterm{assertion-statement}s
1068-
is an evaluation in sequence\iref{basic.contract.eval} of
1068+
is an evaluation in sequence\iref{basic.contract.eval} of
10691069
the contract assertions introduced
10701070
by those \grammarterm{assertion-statement}s.
10711071
\begin{note}
1072-
A sequence of assertion statements can thus be repeatedly evaluated as a group. %JMB: Should we remove the "thus"?
1072+
A sequence of \grammarterm{assertion-statement}s
1073+
can thus be repeatedly evaluated as a group. %JMB: Should we remove the "thus"?
10731074
\begin{example}
10741075
\begin{codeblock}
10751076
int f(int i)

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)